United States v. Flynn, No. 19-1263 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing a false tax return, he unsuccessfully tried to withdraw his plea. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that defendant failed to show fair and just reasons why he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea where the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; his plea did not lack a factual basis supporting the conviction; and the Government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
The court also held that the Klein conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 371 was not void for vagueness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing or to bifurcate the sentencing and restitution proceedings; there was no error in the district court's order of restitution; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant failed to establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty pleas as the record showed defendant understood the nature of the charges in this complex conspiracy and fraud case; further, the guilty plea had a factual basis supporting both of the convictions; the government did not breach the agreement at sentencing by not recommending the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility as defendant's denial of nearly every fact previously admitted was not consistent with his acceptance of responsibility; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 is not void for vagueness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing or to bifurcate the sentencing and restitution proceedings; defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution as imposition of restitution does not implicate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; the government met its burden to establish the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence; argument the court erred in imposing a four-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1 for role in the offense rejected. [ August 12, 2020 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.